After listening to “The Woman Who Gave Birth to Rabbits”, by Stephen Garcia, my biggest takeaway was that reading and watching a play provides different interpretations of the plot.
Upon first glance, I noticed how strange the title was. How did she give birth to rabbits? Why rabbits and not another animal? When I was reading the play at my own pace, I marked up some quotes that stood out to me because they seemed relevant to that character’s development. I also took note of the recurring themes, such as gender roles and superior vs. inferior. In the margins, I commented on the characters’ behaviors and emotions. This may have been excessive and tedious, but it helped me understand the message of the play and I actually enjoyed reading it.
A couple of days before the live reading, I was discussing the play with a few peers and the general interpretation was that rabbits were chosen to symbolize fertility and Mary Toft, the wife, gave birth to rabbits as a punishment for Joshua Toft’s, the husband, actions and misdirected prayers. It was a bit disappointing to hear from Stephen Garcia that the play is based on a true 18th century event. I thought it was just a very strange play with an absurd plot that seemed to work well and make for an interesting read. Regardless, the actors read the characters in the way that I envisioned it and their body language and facial expressions portrayed the emotion of the character very well.
It was cool to be able to ask questions, and when I asked my question about the significance behind the whiskey for the character Thomas Ahlers, Joshua’s best friend, I didn’t get the answer I expected. I interpreted the whiskey as Thomas’ method of releasing the palpable tension, but the actor Gil viewed it as a minute detail. Whiskey was the common drink of the 18th century, so that could be the reason why Thomas was consistently drinking and offering it to others. A discussion point that stuck out to me was the concept of money and making the arts more accessible. Stephen Garcia mentioned how his plays used to be free, but now he has to charge a price because assigning a value to one’s work makes it more respectable in society’s eyes. The play may be $5, but $5 versus free says something about the artist’s work. He also briefly brought up Broadway and the high ticket prices, but I actually disagreed with him on this because if the play was able to make it to the level of Broadway, then that means it’s worth the price and accessibility is not the main concern.
At the end of day, I finally got to see the Macaulay building and I was able to hear a live reading for free.
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
